Inside Westminster Abbey it was interesting to notice who was the most important of these famous legends and who was buried there out of not pity, but let’s say, sympathetic respect. You can tell the names in the large room are the most important of the B list historical figures, the names that had their own rooms and tombs were the A listers, and the C list as you enter the church consisted mostly of religious figures and monks. Even in death we all hold varying values to those we leave behind… funny. I kept asking myself why it mattered so much for these people to be buried here, especially when most of whom are buried did not care or wished not to be buried there. Cause in today’s times, yeah, it makes sense, a place you can go to see all these historical and important graves, but back then? Seems like a resting place for the rich and I truly do not care to give that type of reverence to skin and bones. Especially when the souls of the people that lived inside these skin and bones were horrid aristocrats. But I digress… 

The most fascinating memorial inside the large room to me was David Garrick’s. His plaque on the wall showcased himself emerging flamboyantly from a set of stage curtains and two of his wenches holding the classic theatre masks. Above David’s head there is also a smaller plaque that looks like a coin if William Shakespeare was the printed head. David was born in Hereford, France in 1717 and died in London in 1779. What I find interesting about David Garrick specifically is his tenacity for the art form of theatre. Reading his bio I learned that he lived the young actor’s lifestyle. He did theatre in high school and then moved to the big city of London to chase his dreams but also have a nine to five as a wine merchant so he could support himself during the trial years. Very similar to the classic bartender/server actor life we all know today. David saw his first live play in London at the Drury Lane Theatre and was instantly hooked. He auditioned for Drury Lane and was rejected. Twice. He then went to a smaller theatre named Goodman’s Field Theatre and played several small roles in his time there. This finally brought on the attention of some Drury Lane folk and finally he was offered a job by his dream theatre. And then… his big breakthrough. King Richard III. His acting was monumental during the 18th century. David Garrick essentially changed the game with his acting style and debonair way. He was also a Shakespeare fan boy. He constructed a temple to Shakespeare comprised with multiple Shakespeare memorabilia and his poems. He even put on a Shakespeare festival called The Jubilee that was received very well by audiences, and they put on over ninety plays during that festival’s duration.  

The second grave I noticed was the grave of the “Unknown Warrior”. I thought this was quite cool because although this is a place to bury the smart, inquisitive, and rich; someone had enough of a heart to decide they need something to commemorate all the allied souls that were lost during WWI. Although small, it is still so powerful. I found it quite interesting too that this is the one grave you are not supposed to stand on. I suppose it is because of how much generational trauma comes with the World Wars and the people that live in London. I enjoy the purity of this gesture and the respect the aristocrats had for these young men that gave their lives to their country.  

Lastly, Stephen Hawking, I believe, was the newest grave I saw inside the walls of Westminster Abbey. Stephen Hawking was born in Oxford in 1942 and died in Cambridge in 2018. Stephen Hawking was a madman with a plan. His brain is what solely got him into the Fellows of the Royal Society and what allowed him to be buried in such a prestigious place. His contributions to science and mathematics were proud accomplishments for the English and they welcomed his abilities into their circle of the mad fairly quickly as he progressed early on in his life and showed promise in his future.  

Today we toured Westminster Abbey with our guide Molly, I loved the design of the building I think it is a beautiful church and I liked looking at all the different architecture that was inside. I think that Westminster Abbey is beautiful and it is a good option for the coronations to take place at, especially because it is one of the oldest buildings I think in the world. Like I’ve said in previous blog posts I felt very lucky to be able to go into such a historic building where so many important things have happened throughout history. 

I noticed that there were some memorials for people who had died and been buried somewhere else, like William Shakespeare, Winston Churchill, and probably lots of other people. I think I would have preferred to have walked through the Abbey at my own pace rather than being on a guided tour, most of the time I could hear her very well. Other than not being able to hear very well I enjoyed looking at all of the different things that the Abbey had to offer. I liked learning about all of the gravestones of famous people from history and seeing some of them like Mary Queen of Scotts, Edward the Confessor, Henry the 8th, Elizabeth the first, and the unmarked grave of the fallen British soldier. I also really enjoyed seeing and learning about all of the famous poets and writers graves in the Poets’ Corner section of the Abbey. I liked learning about how one of the women writers wrote under a pen name so that she could get her work recognized and published, and when she died they buried her in Poets’ corner in Westminster Abbey with her real name and her pen name on the gravestone which hI thought was really cool. 

Overall, I liked my time at Westminster Abbey. I would have probably changed a few things to help make my personal experience better, but I think that it was a great experience, one that I will probably never have again so I’m glad that I got to go and see such a historical place. I think that it is a great place to go see if you are ever in London, it has so much history from multiple coronations of Kings and Queens, royal weddings, and tons of other things. 

First off, I would like to say I have long been fooled about Westminster Abbey. The famous church where the United Kingdom crowns their monarchs is not the building adjacent to Elizabeth Tower (the iconic fancy tower with the clock which most of us incorrectly refer to as Big Ben). Parliament sits next to the clock tower and major London landmark. Westminster Abbey is actually north. Not drastically removed, mind you, I believe I crossed a singular street and then had to do a very short walk. Still! I feel I have been misled; although, I don’t really know why as I had never been informed incorrectly or really at all.

Anyway, Westminster is rather impressive. From the outside, you can see a large circular beautiful stained-glass window. What is standing today is largely the gothic style of architecture (my architecture major roommate, Madison, has informed me that it is perpendicular gothic to be exact). You can tell this very clearly by the flying buttresses and many pointy decorative choices. While it is quite impressive, the building seems like it wants you to think it is impressive. Gothic architecture often seems to be a blending of creative structural choices and showing off; Westminster is no different.

Overall, despite the beauty of the church, I was a bit…well, I know you can be overwhelmed, and you can be underwhelmed, but since I am in Europe, I think I can just be whelmed, so I’ll go with that.

I may have had a more pleasant experience if I had gotten to do a self-paced audio tour. No hate to our tour guide Molly, I have just loved walking around with an audio tour since I toured mansions in the Northeastern US with them. There is also the problem that accompanies every major tourist attraction: people. I felt rushed or like I could not see what I wanted to see because of all the other people who wanted to see the same things.  

Today, Westminster Abbey is a functioning church aside from being a major tourist and school trip draw. Notable events for us modern folk include William and Kate getting married at this church in 2011. Just over a month ago, on May 6, King Charles III was the fortieth monarch crowned at Westminster. William the Conquer was the first British ruler to be crowned at the site with this coronation occurring Christmas day 1066 (a fact that has taken residence in my brain since 3^rd grade).

There was first a Christian congregation on the site of Westminster around 960 AD. King Edward, now known as St. Edward the Confessor, wanted to build a palace on the bank of the Thames in the 1040s. Since there was a monastery close by, he decided to enlarge it and turn it into a full church in honor of (St.) Peter the Apostle. To distinguish the church from the eastminster (St. Paul’s Cathedral), the church was dubbed Westminster. The Pyx chamber and supports of the undercroft are the only surviving features of Edward’s Westminster. What stands today was built during the 13^th century.

Part of the purpose of Westminster was to be the royal burial site, and while many are buried at the church, the last monarch to be buried here was George II in 1760. After George II, monarchs started being buried at Windsor. Westminster was also opened up as a burial for commoners. Important Brits who are not actually buried at Westminster have memorials there. Shakespeare somewhat famously refused to be buried at Westminster; he is instead buried at the church he was baptized at in Straford-upon-Avon, and there is a curse on the grave if anyone should try to move the body.

Authors such as Lewis Carroll and George Eliot are also only commemorated instead of buried at Westminster. I mention these two together as they are known by pen names. Their legal names were Charles Lutwidge Dodgson and Mary Ann Evans, respectively. Carroll has gone down in history as the creator of Alice and the mysterious and fantastical Wonderland. However, he was also a Mathematics tutor at Christ Church, a college of Oxford University, and a pioneer in photography. Eliot wrote seven books and is considered one of the leading female authors of the Victorian age.

Both are commemorated in Poet’s Corner. The first to be buried in this section of Westminster was Geoffrey Chaucer (Canterbury Tales). Two other notable men buried in this section are Charles Dickens and Rudyard Kipling.

Interesting, Mary I (Catholic and namesake of the tomato-based alcohol cocktail) and Elizabeth I (Protestant and alleged virgin) are entombed together. The two are the daughters of Henry VIII and half-sisters. Mary once imprisoned her sister in the Tower of London to discourage Elizabeth’s supporters and therefore better secure her throne. Mary is assumed to have died of cancer leaving the throne to Elizabeth and the country to the Protestants. There are three theories of why Elizabeth died: an illness, blood poising due to her makeup that was classified as a poison in the 1630s, or because she refused to remove her coronation ring which had grown into her skin. The inscription on Elizabeth’s tomb translates to “Partners in throne and grave, here we sleep Elizabeth and Mary, sisters in the hope of the Resurrection.”

After Elizabeth I died, the throne went to James I of England and VI of Scotland. He had his mother, Mary Queen of Scots, moved to Westminster Abbey. Mary was executed by her cousin Elizabeth and now forever lies across the hall from the other queen.

There are Prime Ministers interred at this church although you will not find the great Winston Churchill. Churchill did not want to be buried among men he would not even have a smoke with and instead only has a memorial. Another notable WWII era politician is memorialized at Westminster, but this one is not British. The UK government memorialized FDR in their historic abbey for being a friend of freedom and Britian.

So there it is, Westminster Abbey, a place that celebrates the renewal of a country and the end of the perceived greats.

Westminster Abbey was a hot, packed experience. I loved looking at all of the architecture and the stained glass. But with the amount of people also inside with us, I wanted out.  I’m learning I’m not a huge fan of crowds. No scratch that I’m not a huge fan of crowds when I am hot and everyone else in the crowd is alo warm. Makes me feel icky, sticky and uncomfortable, and made me pay attention less to what was going on around me, and focus more on myself. Feeling grateful for all of the breezes and AC that I find. I really wanted to stand and look around for all of the actors, writers, scientists, the list goes on that are buried in Westminster Abbey. Like Darwin and Stephen Hawking but by the time Molly had concluded our tour I was getting to g.o. I needed ice water asap and to sit down. But the few people’s graves/memoriams that caught my eye were: 

Jane Austen

• Great female eEnglish novelist of the 19th century 
• 6 major works including Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, Persuasion, and Emma.  
• Born December 16 1775 to Reverend George Austen and his wife Cassandra. 
• Jane had one sister and six brothers. 
• Jane was engaged for a single night. 
• Jane died on July 18 1817 at 41 years old. 

Peggy Ashcroft

• Born December 22 1907 and died June 14 1991 
• An English actress whose career spanned more than 60 years 
• Made her stage debut in 1926, she played opposite Ralph Richardson and Laurence Olivier. 
• She is well known for her Shakesperian and classical roles. 
• She married three times and had two children from her third husband, Jeremy Hutchison. 
• A memorial service was held for her at the Abbey and she has a memorial stone there as well, but her ashes are scattered Stratford upon Avon. 

Anne Bracegirdle 

• Born 1671 and died September 12 1748 
• An English actress and singer. 
• As a young girl she was placed in the care of Thomas Betterton, who was also an actor, and his wife. Betterton acted in many plays alongside Bracegirdle. 
• She started performing in 1688 and became popular playing “breeches” parts and also some Shakespeare, William Congreve also wrote plays for her. 
• In 1705, she began to have rival Anne Oldfield, and many audiences preferred Oldfield. This led to Bracegirdle retiring in 1707. 
• She made one last appearance at Betterton’s benefit in 1709. 
• Braacegirdle made a request to be buried at the Abbey and her request has been fulfilled. 

Westminster Abbey was so beautiful and historic. Being there with so many important figures who have passed was a little haunting, but it gave me a larger appreciation for those who have done so much for humanity. The entire building was a piece of art that I’ll never forget.

One of the graves I found was of George Frideric Handel, a German-British composer in the 1700s. His grave stood out to me as I’ve actually done a few of his pieces in choir and really enjoyed them. He grew up in Germany but settled and did most of his work in London. He was one of the most important Baroque-era composers and created the genres of English oratorio and organ concerto. He also worked in Opera, creating 3 commercial opera companies to supply the English nobility with Italian opera. His music was admired and helped influence Mozart and Beethoven.

Another grave I saw was of David Garrick, an English actor, playwright, theatre manager, and producer who had a strong influence on European theatre practice in the 18th century. He was first noticed after playing Richard III in an amateur production of Shakespeares Richard III, and after growing in popularity he used his influence to reform theatre in countless ways, changing production matters and audience etiquette to make theatre and safer space to be in.

The last grave I’ll talk about out of the artist buried in Westminister Abbey is the grave of Thomas Campbell. He was a Scottish poet and was one of the initiators to start a plan to found University College London. He produced patriotic war songs in the early 19th century and had his poems set into music by influential composers such as Beethoven. 

Learning more about these influential artists helps me gain a deeper understanding of my craft. Going to Westminster Abbey and not only seeing the resting site of these artists but of Nobles and many others was an incredible, interesting experience.

Fringe theatre is a very frivolous term because there are so many opinion-based factors that determine whether or not a theatre is fringe. This ranges from theatre size, to the size of the company that is producing it, and even to the quality and funding the show might have. Even with these examples, not all of them are applicable to every single fringe theatre. From what I have deduced, fringe is a very opinionated term and anything can be fringe if you make the argument. As long as the show is small enough and not being produced by a very wealthy and well know company (i.e. Broadway or West End), then it is fringe theatre. 

While on this trip, I have had the pleasure of seeing a fair amount of fringe theatre. Not all of them were great, but I can say that it was less the production’s fault and more the script’s fault. In my opinion, Glory Ride, Jules & Jim, and How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying. Of these three, Glory Ride was the only one that brought me joy. The other two shows had a myriad of faults and I’d rather not write another hate post. Glory Ride is based on a true story of a famous Italian cyclist who saved the lives of many by getting passports in and out of the country during Musalini’s reign. Going into the show, I thought it was going to be a horrible impulse buy that would result in a two hour long history lesson, but I was very wrong. The show was beautiful, well-acted, and the singers had some of the best voices I’ve heard all month. I could tangent about what I thought of the show, but I don’t want to ruin the experience for anyone who sees it in the future. Instead I will talk about what made the space fringe. The Charing Cross theatre is unfortunately located directly underneath the Charing Cross Tube Station which means that throughout the show you get to hear the sounds of trains going in and out of the station. Although it happened a couple of times throughout the show, almost every single moment was perfect. For example, when the characters were sitting through a German bombing raid the trains from above added the perfect amount of spice to the atmosphere. Another strange part of the space was the stage itself. I was sitting in the front row, and the stage towered over me. When I stood up, the stage came up to my shoulder (I’m 5’10” ¾ btw ;). Luckily for me, there was not a lot of action on the back half of the stage, but the poor lady next to me wasn’t having as great of a time. The entire theatre was small too. So much so that I could hear the actors doing vocal warm ups before the show started. I don’t know if it’s true, but I am fairly certain the theatre doesn’t have any form of house speakers since the show started abruptly with no warning. The lighting and set weren’t complicated, but they still did a great job with both of them. The set was perfect for the story they were trying to tell, and the lights helped to shift focus when needed and give the correct mood to a scene. There were a few times when the entire first row was completely filled with light, but it wasn’t a bad experience, just a surprising one. All of these factors made the show fringe, but not a single factor hampered the enjoyment I had for the show. It’s a new musical, so it won’t be touring anytime soon, but if you get the chance to see the show then go see it.

We came back to the Globe! On Thursday we crossed the crowded Millennium Bridge once again to meet at the matinee showing of Comedy of Errors. Our seats were directly across from the stage at this show, which gave us a better perspective of the staging and movement of the actors. From the beginning, I could tell that this show decided to follow the traditional concepts of the scripts more than the production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream that we had seen at the Globe a few weeks prior. The costumes were more puffy and less colorful. The casting followed the script more than Midsummer’s casting. However, the plot of Comedy of Errors needs the specific casting of two twins, which was executed very well in how the costumes and mannerisms were identical, especially for the two Dromios. The actors played the script like they had written it. They spoke every line with the assumption that they fully understand and spoke every line from their full chest. For such a predictable script, the action and jokes were played as funny as they could be played. It’s not common that a whole Shakespeare cast has the ability to make the audience laugh out loud multiple times, whether that be through line delivery or slapstick blocking, I was entertained, nonetheless. The side characters and use of the set props made the play with the floating boats being carried over the groundlings to deliver the duke in different colored Lord Farquaad-esque wigs. I was very pleased that we had read and studied this play in class before viewing this play. I was already very confused at certain scenes so I have no idea how I would have perceived that show if I had never read it. Shakespeare’s classic rushed ending grew very beneficial during this performance as our amazing seats turned miserable when the four o’clock sun started burning our lower bodies. For an outdoor stage, I must give it to the actors for performing in eighty-degree heat wearing layers of petticoats or male bloomers and having to yell over about five airplanes and two babies screaming to go home. Though this play reads as a more boring and repetitive Shakespeare script, I felt that this company went above and beyond in how they delivered their lines and added much more comedy that was terribly needed for a show with comedy in its name.

Plus, the Iced Coffee and Croque Monsieur from the Globe cafe were so amazing!

Shakespeare’s Globe-the beginning of theatre, movies, everything. It all started here. Our group saw another Shakespeare production a couple of days ago at the Globe Theatre. As we made our way into the Globe Theatre, I tried to imagine what the experience would have been like during Shakespeare’s time. Did audiences realize how they were a part of something bigger than themselves? Did they realize that they were witnessing plays being performed and written by who was and always would be the most known and greatest writer in the world? As I sat in the heat on the uncomfortable benches, I wondered how they ever did it in so many layers of clothing. Being a spectator in Shakespeare’s Globe made me feel like I had torn the tapestry of time and was peeking into the past. One thing that would not have been in the past however were the captions screens. I noticed immediately that there were caption screens to help hear and understand the play better. This was definitely a much appreciated modern touch to the ancient tradition of Shakespeare.

The play that we were seeing is known as The Comedy of Errors. After both being separated from their twins in a shipwreck, Antipholus and his slave Dromio go to Ephesus to find them. The other set of twins lives in Ephesus, and the new arrivals cause a series of incidents of mistaken identity.

This play was one of the plays that we read in our on-campus class before our departure for London. I must say that the play’s humor is so much more effective when performed rather than read. I found myself understanding jokes a lot more and laughing hysterically. The jokes just don’t hit the mark quite well without the bodily gestures and animated facial expressions of actors.

I think what also made this play so funny was the fact that the actors interact with the audience. I often wonder if this would have been done in Shakespeare’s time or not. I’m sure that the audience would have laughed, but would breaking the fourth wall be considered unprofessional? One instance of breaking the forth wall that I loved was that when there was a baby that would start crying, one of the actors had a line where they said, “Well.” The actor turned to the baby when it started crying and repeated this line more dramatically by saying, “Weeeellll” It produced a lot of laughter from the audience and eased the tension of the audience being distracted by the baby. It even happened a second time where the actor yelled “yeah” in agreement to the baby’s fussiness. I also loved how the women interacted with the people in the front of the audience. One even pointed out a man in the audience and spoke to him. Another reason I love these plays is because in the production, actors make entrances from the other side of the theatre, requiring them to have to pass through the audience to get to the stage.

While the play was much more humorous in person rather than when reading it, I found myself becoming a bit more confused at first because the actors who played the twins looked so much alike that I would have to try to pay more attention on who was who which led to me missing plot points of the play. Another reason that I missed points of the play or became perplexed at times was because my eyes kept reading the captions on the screens thus forcing me to sacrifice the chance to fully see their faces and movements when they delivered the lines. I feel as if this play would be much easier for those in Shakespeare’s time to understand because the language would have been much more familiar to them rather than to us. Nevertheless, many of the jokes were still knee-slappers for modern day viewers.

Speaking of modern day, plays at the globe may be performed more progressively than Shakespeare production performed in contemporary America. There is a significant amount of bending gender roles in plays at the Globe. This was also seen there at our viewing of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Women will play the characters of men and vice versa. This is quite a twist of tradition compared to how things were done in Shakespeare’s time. Women were not allowed to perform on the stage so all of the female parts were played by male actors. Now, it is often seen that the male actors are played by females. I did not see any males playing females during either productions at the Globe.

There are also many other elements of Shakespeare’s play that are performed differently in the Globe now than they would have been performed during their original time. One way that they are performed differently is that there is a director for the plays whereas in Shakespeare’s time, each actor would have to direct themselves. Essentially, each actor only knew the time of their own parts rather than all the lines of the play to reduce the risk of the entire script being stolen.

As I tried to imagine how Shakespeare’s plays would have or would not have been performed during his time, I found myself feeling incredibly grateful and privileged to be where I was right there, in the present, taking it all in with modern eyes and modern ears. I would say that I was born in the wrong time, but then again, I don’t have to worry about dying from the Black Plague or having my thatched roof catch on fire. I can watch Shakespeare, ride the tube, and get coffee at Pret all in one day. What a life.